Iran calls for Israel's destruction

[russ_watters]

The nice thing about terrorists is you can always trust them to come right out and say what they want. Since they have no sense of morality, they don't attempt to hide their true intentions.

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-iran-israel_x.htm

Too bad, though - I thought Iran was starting to moderate.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ahmadi-nejad's hardline anti-zionist philosophy is well-known. In fact this was why he won the recent elections by an overwhelming majority. It suggests that his ideas are shared by a majority of the population.

Russ, did you just call him a terrorist ?

 

[wasteofo2]

Since they have no sense of morality, they don't attempt to hide their true intentions.

That's kinda ridiculous to say they don't have a sense of morality. Their sense of morality is way different than ours, for sure, but they certainly believe in right and wrong, good and evil, etc. They don't hide their true intentions because they think calling for Isreal to be wiped off the map is highly righteous.

Just cause we think they're bastards, doesn't mean they think they're bastards. To them, Allah is surely on their side.

 

[Bilal]

Bush called Sharon as “man of peace”. Most of people in ME think that Bush is a bastard because he said that about Sharon.

Israel and Zionism in the eyes of majority of Middle Eastern nations are considered as long term colonial project which was established by western countries based on religious-racist factors.

Israel should work hard to prove that they really want peace. The first step they need to do in this direction is to give the Palestinian part of Palestine according to UN resolutions, and then they should stop support Bush and his violent plans against the Islamic world.

I do not agree with the comments of Najjad , but surely the Zionists who are responsible about the mistrust, it is enough to check the background of what called neo-conservatives and those who asking for clash between civilizations.

 

[Informal Logic]

The nice thing about terrorists is you can always trust them to come right out and say what they want. Since they have no sense of morality, they don't attempt to hide their true intentions. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-iran-israel_x.htm
Too bad, though - I thought Iran was starting to moderate.

And those who hide their true intentions (Bu-a****! - excuse me) have a sense of morality?

 

[Burnsys]

And those who hide their true intentions (Bu-a****! - excuse me) have a sense of morality?

:rofl: :rofl:

 

[Skyhunter]

"The fighting in Palestine is a war between the (whole) Islamic nation and the world of arrogance," Ahmadinejad said, using Tehran's propaganda epithet for the United States and Israel. "Today, Palestinians are representing the Islamic nation against arrogance."

Arrogance? :uhh: I really wish that our President didn't resemble that remark.

I don't believe that this is the first time, the leader of Iran has expressed these or similar sentiments towards Israel. But it comes now at an inopportune time.

If the White house starts spinning for war I am afraid they will spin to justify strategic nukes. There is no way that we can afford to occupy Iran. We simply do not have the men or the money to do an Iraq style invasion and occupation. Not and keep war from becoming to personal and inconvenient.
Condi alluded to some grand strategy with her latest version of the reasoning for invading Iraq. They have a plan, I wish I knew what it was, because I really don't trust these people.

I have been involved in enough projects to know that if you have stupid people in charge, when things start to go wrong (and they always do) the people in charge become desperate and sometimes irrational. Bush is a bully, when stressed bullies want to hurt someone or something.

All the pieces are in place, Rummy in charge of defense, Condi in charge of war, and John Bolton our face of diplomacy to the rest of the world.

This is troubling;

Iran announced earlier this year that it had fully developed solid fuel technology for missiles, a major breakthrough that increases their accuracy.
The Shahab-3, with a range of 810 miles to 1,200 miles, is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Hey, we have 135,000 troops right next door.

Our troops are are close enough for shorter range missiles.

How accurate do you have to be with a nuke?

Are we going to nuke them before they nuke us?

 

[Yonoz]

Ahmadi-nejad's hardline anti-zionist philosophy is well-known. In fact this was why he won the recent elections by an overwhelming majority. It suggests that his ideas are shared by a majority of the population.

There are a few better explanations why http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/12/iran11114.htm".

 

[russ_watters]

That's kinda ridiculous to say they don't have a sense of morality. Their sense of morality is way different than ours, for sure, but they certainly believe in right and wrong, good and evil, etc.

For any idea to be valid, whether a scientific or philosophical, it must be internally consistent. For a person to claim to be nonviolent, while concurrently calling for the destruction of a people, is a self-contradiction.

Perhaps "sense of morality" was too loose of a phrase: they certainly have an idea in their heads of what morality is, but that doesn't make it a functional moral theory.

 

[Art]

For any idea to be valid, whether a scientific or philosophical, it must be internally consistent. For a person to claim to be nonviolent, while concurrently calling for the destruction of a people, is a self-contradiction.
Perhaps "sense of morality" was too loose of a phrase: they certainly have an idea in their heads of what morality is, but that doesn't make it a functional moral theory.

I am sure somewhere in the ME there is an Islamic Russ Watters who makes identical claims with regard to his perception of the U.S. and it's lack of a functional moral theory.

One's point of view or 'sense of morality' depends entirely on one's frame of reference. 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'

 

[Skyhunter]

There are a few better explanations why http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/12/iran11114.htm".

“Iran’s elections for all practical purposes are pre-cooked,” said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East Division. “The Guardian Council appoints a few candidates, and then Iranians get to choose from this very restricted list.”

The saddest part of an attack against Iran is that innocent people will be the ones to suffer and die. The Iranian people are not our enemy yet because of our governments they will eventually pay an enormous price.

I wonder what Condi had in mind for Iran in their talks about reshaping the ME?

 

[SOS2008]

I don't believe that this is the first time, the leader of Iran has expressed these or similar sentiments towards Israel. But it comes now at an inopportune time.

If the White house starts spinning for war I am afraid they will spin to justify strategic nukes. There is no way that we can afford to occupy Iran. We simply do not have the men or the money to do an Iraq style invasion and occupation. Not and keep war from becoming to personal and inconvenient.

Condi alluded to some grand strategy with her latest version of the reasoning for invading Iraq. They have a plan, I wish I knew what it was, because I really don't trust these people.

I have been involved in enough projects to know that if you have stupid people in charge, when things start to go wrong (and they always do) the people in charge become desperate and sometimes irrational. Bush is a bully, when stressed bullies want to hurt someone or something.

All the pieces are in place, Rummy in charge of defense, Condi in charge of war, and John Bolton our face of diplomacy to the rest of the world.
This is troubling...

I agree the puppeteers have the strings tangled and the puppet isn't dancing very well. They can't use their usual strategies to circumvent congress and the American people, what ever they may want to do. This may be good news (though like you I don't trust anything they say):

"Bush administration drops ‘bunker buster’ plan
Plan will now focus on a similar device using nonnuclear technology"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9820682/

I am sure somewhere in the ME there is an Islamic Russ Watters who makes identical claims with regard to his perception of the U.S. and it's lack of a functional moral theory.

One's point of view or 'sense of morality' depends entirely on one's frame of reference. 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which has been going on for over half a century now) makes me think of two kids in a fight, with one yelling how the other hit him first, and the other yelling that the other hit him harder. And then someone intervenes, but unfortunately takes sides, and before you know it the whole world is sucked into the conflict. I say we build a wall around the disputed territories so the rest of us can get a little peace and quiet.

 

[Art]

To follow on from my earlier post re moral perspectives, many people around the world find this US administration's fixation on being allowed to torture people morally repugnant.

Cheney plan exempts CIA from abuse bill
Legislative measure designed to cruel, degrading treatment of prisoners

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White

Updated: 5:29 a.m. ET Oct. 25, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9811397/

 

[Manchot]

For any idea to be valid, whether a scientific or philosophical, it must be internally consistent. For a person to claim to be nonviolent, while concurrently calling for the destruction of a people, is a self-contradiction.
Perhaps "sense of morality" was too loose of a phrase: they certainly have an idea in their heads of what morality is, but that doesn't make it a functional moral theory.

Russ, just out of curiosity, what is your position on abortion? Why? Now, what is your position on the death penalty?

 

[Smurf]

He's in favour of both, I'm pretty sure.

 

[The Smoking Man]

That's kinda ridiculous to say they don't have a sense of morality. Their sense of morality is way different than ours, for sure, but they certainly believe in right and wrong, good and evil, etc. They don't hide their true intentions because they think calling for Isreal to be wiped off the map is highly righteous.

Just cause we think they're bastards, doesn't mean they think they're bastards. To them, Allah is surely on their side.

I'd also state that they originally called for the dismantling of the state and have put various forms of censure through the UN but, because of the US veto, none of it has made it through.

When the democratic process is circumvented like this, revolution is often the last recourse.

We have seen and ignored the legal process of change in the middle east since Israel was created.

It has been interfered with numerous times by vetos that aborted a vote in the 100's to 1 or 2.

How long did we think that this type of bias would carry before a revolt?

Yes we like to demonize what we see in the ME but rarely look to our own actions as to why it is happening.

 

[edward]

The saddest part of an attack against Iran is that innocent people will be the ones to suffer and die. The Iranian people are not our enemy yet because of our governments they will eventually pay an enormous price.
I wonder what Condi had in mind for Iran in their talks about reshaping the ME?

In the end either the USA or Israel will end up dropping neutron bombs on Iran. Only China can stop us.

 

[Manchot]

He's in favour of both, I'm pretty sure.

Oh, well there goes that argument. Russ, I'm sorry if I offended you by assuming that you were aligned with the typical Republican belief.

Having said that, there are many logical inconsistencies in most peoples' moral systems in this country, just as in Iran. Most liberals are pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, while most conservatives are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. IMO, both of these views are internally inconsistent, because both sides essentially argue reason for one of their POVs, and the sanctity of life for the other.

 

[The Smoking Man]

In the end either the USA or Israel will end up dropping neutron bombs on Iran. Only China can stop us.

They are motivated too because they just signed a multi-billion dollar agreement with Iran for the supply of oil.

(Which the US government has defined as a strategic comodity)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

To follow on from my earlier post re moral perspectives, many people around the world find this US administration's fixation on being allowed to torture people morally repugnant. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9811397/

LOL! The CIA is exempt?! Who'd have thought?!
Do you really think that the CIA strictly follows the law when they have an officially titled "Department of Clandestine Operations"?

 

[devil-fire]

"Bush administration drops ‘bunker buster’ plan
Plan will now focus on a similar device using nonnuclear technology"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9820682/

its good to see the usa has finally stopped developing nuclear weapons. this will surely help with trying to prevent iran from obtaining their own nuclear arsenal from a moral stand point.

 

[MaxS]

The nice thing about terrorists is you can always trust them to come right out and say what they want. Since they have no sense of morality, they don't attempt to hide their true intentions. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-iran-israel_x.htm
Too bad, though - I thought Iran was starting to moderate.

actually I would think its immoral if they WERE trying to hide their true intentions lol...

 

[Anttech]

For any idea to be valid, whether a scientific or philosophical, it must be internally consistent. For a person to claim to be nonviolent, while concurrently calling for the destruction of a people, is a self-contradiction.

So let's use you logic on your inital statement.

The nice thing about terrorists is you can always trust them to come right out and say what they want. Since they have no sense of morality, they don't attempt to hide their true intentions.

If one is to come out and say what they want, it follows from your statement they are a terrorist.
Thus any person who makes a statement of wanting is a terrorist? Or is it any person who doesn't hide there true intension is a terrorist, ie someone typically who is trustworthy is a terrorist?

Unless your statement isn't "internally consistent." I would find it hard to to trust anyone who makes a statement of truth...

 

[Lisa!]

The nice thing about terrorists is you can always trust them to come right out and say what they want. Since they have no sense of morality, they don't attempt to hide their true intentions.

Nope! When you're able to do something, you simply go and do it. No need to let your enemy know what you're going to do. It sounds crazy. In fact we have 2 tyes of terrorists:
1.those who want(/pretend to want ) to do something but they can't. So they just speak.
2. they can do what they want. So they just fool the public and try to make up some excuses and then do what they're going to do. So in fact they hide their true intentions.(Like US administration)
In this case, it's mostly other countries fault who's caused Iran president talk in this way. Why? I'll tell you: US administrtion is always threatening Iran. They don't even let Iran to continue their nuclear plans while you and everyone else know that they can't try to get Nucks in this situation.( IAEA control what they're doing). So what do you want them to do in this situation? Simply say "All right. We're not going to do anything against you since we can't. So we're just waiting for US to come and make our country another hell like Iraq?". I know what they're saying make the situation even worse for them. But you know it's not only their fault. US and Iran can never solve the problems btw them because of the Israel. I guess both sides are stupid as much as each other. Anyway that's funny if you expect Iranian politicians to change their political position against Israel too fast.
PS Once you told me there is a serious cultural problem in the middle-east that needs to be fixed. Iasked you how you're going to fix that problem. But you never answered. Well perhaps now I got the reason. Yeah, if you have a
sense of morality, you must hide your true intentions!
Nope, I didn't misunderstand you this time. I guess you mean they're too immoral to realize what they want to do, is immoral or perhaps they don't care about morality. BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. perhaps their moral system is a bit different from theirs and that's the problem. For example if you ask them what they think of russ_water, they may tell you he's immoral because he favores killing the people in middle-east. At least he doesn't condemn it.
I think they're thinking they're doing something totally moral, so they speak their mind to public. IN fact most of time you hide your intentions when you consider them immoral. AT LEAST BASE ON OTHER PEOPLE's MORAL SYSTEM.

 

[Lisa!]

Ahmadi-nejad's hardline anti-zionist philosophy is well-known. In fact this was why he won the recent elections by an overwhelming majority. It suggests that his ideas are shared by a majority of the population.

Why do you think Iranian have chosen him because of his anti-zionist philosophy? I mean how can you be sure other candidates weren't like him in this case? Anyway are you trying to say the majority of population in Iran are terrorists?

 

[loseyourname]

Having said that, there are many logical inconsistencies in most peoples' moral systems in this country, just as in Iran. Most liberals are pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, while most conservatives are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. IMO, both of these views are internally inconsistent, because both sides essentially argue reason for one of their POVs, and the sanctity of life for the other.

Do I get kudos for being both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty? Anyway, even if Russ' positions had turned out to be inconsistent, that wouldn't make him wrong. It would just make him hypocritical.

The nice thing about terrorists is you can always trust them to come right out and say what they want. Since they have no sense of morality, they don't attempt to hide their true intentions.

If one is to come out and say what they want, it follows from your statement they are a terrorist.

You've got your logic all wrong. From Russ' statement, it follows that if someone is a terrorist, then he will be upfront about his intentions. It doesn't follow that if someone is upfront about his intentions, he is a terrorist. Just because A->B doesn't mean B->A. If you don't believe me, work out the truth table.

That said, I don't exactly agree that a terrorist can necessarily be trusted to be upfront about his intentions, or that Iran's president is a terrorist. I understand his shock, but Russ is using some rhetoric here.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I don't actually see what there is to argue about Russ' first post. If a western leader like Bush justified and encouraged terrorist activities in the cause of destroying a country, we'd hear the words 'terrorist' and 'immoral' chanted left, right and centre, no matter the historical dispute over that country. And rightly so. Okay, immoral isn't the same as amoral, but are we really arguing about a vowel and a consonant here?

I sense some weird dual standards being applied here.

 

[Anttech]

You've got your logic all wrong. From Russ' statement, it follows that if someone is a terrorist, then he will be upfront about his intentions. It doesn't follow that if someone is upfront about his intentions, he is a terrorist. Just because A->B doesn't mean B->A.

Ok.. it was a leap of faith :-)

Retracted...

Anyway, from what Russ said, I CAN conclude that to be a Terrorist you have to be upfront about your intentions... Which doesn't make any sence, either. I mean do suicide Bombers or people who hijack planes actually tell people what they are up to before they comite the act?

That said, I don't exactly agree that a terrorist can necessarily be trusted to be upfront about his intentions, or that Iran's president is a terrorist. I understand his shock, but Russ is using some rhetoric here.

Seeing as the "liberals" here keep getting flamed for not being precise about wording, or for arguing like stawmen etc etc.. I am glad that my ilogical conclusion has highlighted Russes illogical statement...

[disclamier]No offence to anyone intended, and if so sorry[/disclamier]

 

[Manchot]

Do I get kudos for being both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty?

Yes, since I'd be in agreement with you on those issues. ;)

 

[The Smoking Man]

Anyway, from what Russ said, I CAN conclude that to be a Terrorist you have to be upfront about your intentions... Which doesn't make any sence, either. I mean do suicide Bombers or people who hijack planes actually tell people what they are up to before they comite the act?

I think the nature of 'terrorism' is to strike terror.

They reveal their ideology, their demands and the fact they WILL attack but not the location.

That is what makes terrorism an effective weapon, rather than stand vigil on the bus that will be blown up, the target of the terrorist threat must stand vigil over everything they claim.

Thus, a handful of 'terrorists' armed with cleaning supplies, fetilizer and other stuff from a hardware store are capable of holding 150,000 of the world's best, most well armed soldiers hostage in Iraq.

When a force of the nature of the Americans or previously the British and even the Romans existed, 'terrorism' was the only recourse to the poor and occupied. That is why they are variously known as freedom fighters to some and terrorists to others.

After all, isn't the legend of Robin Hood a tale of someone who is essentially a terrorist? He, like bin Laden, was from a noble family and fought for the oppressed... It's all in your perception.

 

[Anttech]

They reveal their ideology, their demands and the fact they WILL attack but not the location.

Yeh after the fact, not before...

 

[Curious6]

I hope these comments just intensify the possibility of a US-led invasion of Iran. They deserve it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yeh after the fact, not before...

Well, that becomes immediately apparent when the ambulance turns up.

Terror is the anxiety felt before the attack, hence the definition.

 

[Skyhunter]

I hope these comments just intensify the possibility of a US-led invasion of Iran. They deserve it.

Who are they?

 

[Curious6]

The Iranian theocracy.